Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1977 2015 SLD 1977 (2015) 373 ITR 418
Patna High Court
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE Nos. 18742, 18743 & 19413 OF 2014, JANUARY 16, 2015
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA AND VIKASH, JAIN, JJ
A.K. Rastogi, Manish Rastogi, D.V. Pathy and Abhi Sarkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. Archana Sinha and Mrs. Suman Kumar Mishra for the
Respondent

Union Bank of India

VS

Tax Recovery Officer

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. - Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the IT Department. 2. All the three writ applications raise common issues and accordingly they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. All the writ petitioners are aggrieved and they seek quashing of the show-cause notices all dt. 28 July, 2014 issued by the TRO, Patna, by which the respective petitioners have been called upon to show cause as to why they should not be treated as "assessee in default" under s. 226(3)(ix) of the IT Act, 1961. They have further challenged the orders dt. 29th/30th Sept., 2014 passed by the TRO, by which he has enhanced the rent of the premises of which they are tenants. They further seek quashing of the notices dt. 31st Oct., 2014 under s. 226(3) of the Act issued by the RBI by which directions have been issued by the TRO to the Manager. RBI to make payment of Rs. 1,41,50,196, Rs. 98,13,588 and Rs. 1,19,12,963 respectively with respect to the three petitioners and the consequential letters dt. 31st Oct., 2014 issued by the respondent No. 2, RBI. 4. The short facts of the present cases are that all the three petitioners are Public Sector Banks, being Government of India Undertakings, who are tenants of premises located on Fraser Road, Patna, of which the present owner is M/s Sabicon Estates (P) Ltd. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were regularly paying rent to the said landlord, and after the premises were taken over by the IT Department by issuing notices dt. 28th July, 2014 under s. 226(3) of the Act, they have been paying rent to the TRO. By the aforesaid action, the TRO has sought to unilaterally enhance the rent payable by the petitioners manifold and to recover the same from the respective accounts of the petitioners maintained by the RBI, pursuant to which the aforesaid notices were issued and action taken. 6. The simple submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the TRO has no jurisdiction under the law of the land to unilaterally enhance the rent being paid by the petitioners and any such revision/enhancement/determination of rent can be made in accordance with…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492